DECISION 10032 (CCOL)

Issues: Hatstat had filed previous complaints against the union over the results of union elections. Those claims were dismissed for lack of Commission jurisdiction. Did Hatstat have a cause of action in this complaint for union retaliation for filing charges?

The underlying complaint continued to be over union elections. There was no evidence suggesting that the union had retaliated against Hatstat in any other manner after he filed his initial complaints. A deficiency notice was issued, but Hatstat did not reply. The complaint was dismissed.

For the full decision, click here.

By: David I. Gedrose, Unfair Labor Practice Manager
April 4, 2008

Michael J. Gawley, for the union.
Francis Hatstat, for the complainant.

Case 21542-U-08-5489

DIG